Obama's economy is not Reagan's

Steve Chapman

If Democrats have any hope for President Obama's re-election, it rests largely on the analogy to Ronald Reagan, who presided over a painful recession before winning a second term. But if the analogy proves anything, it's that Obama's plight is far more dire than Reagan's.

The Reagan recession was serious, but it was relatively brief and its effects were far milder than the slump that began in 2007. At the bottom of the Reagan downturn, the economy had lost 2.8 million jobs. Since Obama took office, it's lost 6.8 million jobs.

What's worse, the growth needed to generate new jobs has not occurred. In the second quarter of 1983, notes David Winston, the economy was roaring back at a 9.3 percent annual rate. In the second quarter of 2011, it was crawling along at 1 percent.

Nor is there much reason to think it will improve much. The International Monetary Fund has cut its forecast for U.S. growth to just 1.5 percent this year and 1.8 percent next year. That won't make much of a dent in the unemployment rate.

And let's not forget the housing bust, which has cost American homeowners $7 trillion in lost equity. That pain is real, and it's not going away anytime soon.

Most of these grim facts are not Obama's fault. But after four years in office, he'll have to take the blame.

It may not sound that hard for Obama to look good next to Mitt Romney or Rick Perry. The problem for him is that next November, voters may not see him. They may see only the economy.